I'd like to hear from all you big-bore/DGR shooters on what you consider essential in a gunstock's design to make your rifle point quickly and naturally while attenuating recoil. I got to think about this after seeing that lovely stock on JudgeG's new .404, with the 2.1-inch drop at heel.
I'm hoping along the way that this dicussion might also reveal the secrets behind the Ruger No. 1's punishing recoil in the bigger bores.
I have always assumed a straighter stock (with roughly equivalent drop at comb and heel) drives the gun back into the shoulder rather than rising to pound the cheek, but there is obviously a lot more to this.
And I am sure that a bit of cast-off can also help to direct the punch away from the cheek/jaw, although cast-off is not a thing usually designed into off-the-shelf factory rifles.
Look forward to hearing from you, gentlemen.

I like the echols legend stock design although a WWII era Winchester with a tad more drop at the heel feels good too.

Depends whether you are using a scope or open sights. Drop is always good with open sights. Makes a huge difference - especially on shotguns for wingshooting. I like minimum to no drop on a scoped rifle.

If you get to the DSC or SCI show, try handling the Doctari Rifle by Kilimanjaro.

I want a solid sightline--scope or iron just keep it solid. Thenthe othet thing I believe is overlooked is LOP
. A proper one allows me to keep control during recoil.

For me its about 13 in but make it work for you, IMHO most stocks are too long.

SSR

I tend to find that I need a shorter LOP for shotguns versus rifles.

Kinda equates to " what size shoe is best?" A proper fitting stock is just that! Drop, length, pitch, cast, grip, fore arm...etc. all has to suit the indvidual and caliber.

Every factory or semi custom is a compromise,,,and in many dimensions, a full blown custom stock also has minimized compromises.

I love AHR's design for the heavies

600: Lord that's a lethal-looking AHR you have there -- all business, bud!
Duane: Agree that a proper fitting stock is critical, but are there design elements that attenuate recoil better than others? I've handled some mid-1800s medium-bore (under .70 caliber) single-shot percussion English sporting rifles that seemed to have a magic feel in terms of balance, buttstock thickness and drop dimensions and width and depth of buttplate that felt ideal (without having the luxury of firing the guns).